[HN Gopher] Fujifilm X RAW STUDIO webapp clone
___________________________________________________________________
Fujifilm X RAW STUDIO webapp clone
Author : notcodingtoday
Score : 140 points
Date : 2026-03-19 04:49 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| notcodingtoday wrote:
| Wanted to edit camera profiles on Linux, couldn't get the
| official app to run in Wine, so I built my own
| https://filmkit.eggrice.soy
|
| I also personally find the original app infuriating to use, takes
| a lot of click & wait to modify a profile.
| lun3x wrote:
| This is really cool! I see you've got screenshot of it running
| on Android, could this ever also work on iOS? I tried in iOS on
| Chrome, but I just see "WebUSB not supported. Use Chrome, Edge,
| or Brave.".
| omnimus wrote:
| Apple doesn't allow any other browser engine than Webkit. So
| essentially all browsers on iOS are reskinned Safari.
|
| You will have to wait until the WebUSB support lands in
| Safari.
| wao0uuno wrote:
| Other browser engines are allowed in EU now.
| StyloBill wrote:
| What a great project. Amazing work, thank you for shipping
| this.
| zx8080 wrote:
| > FilmKit uses WebUSB to connect directly to your camera, your
| camera's own image processor handles the conversion. FilmKit is a
| static client-side app, hosted on Github Pages
| tuukkah wrote:
| Isn't that same as a jpeg then?
|
| Edit: There are some parameters:
|
| > _FilmKit communicates PTP (Picture Transfer Protocol) over
| USB, the same protocol that X RAW STUDIO uses. The camera does
| all the heavy lifting: it receives the RAF file and conversion
| parameters, processes them, and returns a JPEG._
| kybernetyk wrote:
| >Isn't that same as a jpeg then?
|
| Yeah, but Fuji X cameras are renown for their JPG processing
| so many people want the in-camera JPG. You could shoot
| directly to JPG but with an app like that you can later
| change the JPG profile, etc. while adjusting exposure
| parameters.
| prmoustache wrote:
| More like a WebGUI for your camera.
| strogonoff wrote:
| While file format (RAF, DNG) often is an acronym, "raw" by itself
| simply references raw image data; it is not an acronym, not a
| trademark, and does not need all caps.
|
| The mistake of "shouting" _raw_ is perpetuated in the wild even
| by serious companies, but let's not let Apple degrade our
| literacy[0]. I'll point to Adobe which does, in fact, use the
| correct spelling[1].
|
| [0] It is fine when used as part of idiomatic spelling of their
| product or trademark ("ProRes RAW HQ", etc.), but IIRC their
| promotional materials and even developer docs do shout it when
| simply referencing raw image data, which is a little ridiculous.
|
| [1] https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/digital-negative.html
| QuantumNomad_ wrote:
| Never thought about that. Always wrote it all uppercase because
| that's what camera maker Canon consistently does from what I've
| seen.
|
| If I search for _Canon raw_ on Google the Canon owned websites
| that I see writes it all uppercase; RAW.
|
| One of their pages that I find even makes note of that:
|
| > The letters RAW do not stand for anything - it's just a
| convention that RAW is usually written in capital letters - and
| the names of RAW files from Canon cameras do not end in .RAW.
|
| https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/image-file-types/
| jcelerier wrote:
| I'd expect a cause is that most camera makers are Japanese,
| and it's not uncommon in Japan to uppercase words written in
| Latin alphabet for aesthetic reasons
| strogonoff wrote:
| Very plausible, I haven't considered it.
|
| Perhaps the combination of that and the old .raw filename
| extensions on old filesystem implementations where
| everything appears uppercase (since camera firmware is
| slower to catch up, this persisted for years even though
| contemporary OS already had no such limitation) made it
| stick.
| strogonoff wrote:
| I can only recommend to consult more trustworthy sources.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| Funny, I've been shooting digitally since 2007 and I've never
| seen RAW spelled other than RAW. I guess we've been doing it
| all wrong :shrug:
| strogonoff wrote:
| I saw it used both ways. My question about which one is right
| was answered as soon as I bothered to look up what it is,
| which I did when I got interested in raw photography.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| To be fair, it's essentially de facto convention at this
| point in the ecosystem, regardless of what's "right" or
| "correct". No one is gonna bat an eye regardless if you write
| RAW or raw either.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| I've been in the film industry since 2010 and yes I see RAW
| but any camera department will tell you it's just "raw"
| unless you're talking about a specific raw codec that has
| "RAW" in the name. The reason no one corrects anyone is that
| it's such a common thing and it doesn't have any major
| consequences. "We are shooting raw" vs. "REDCODE RAW" (most
| people just say "red raw" but just giving full name for
| clarity).
|
| There's no need to be lowkey rude about it either way.
| justincormack wrote:
| Its hard to get anyone not to capitalise three letter words and
| best to just have a longer product name.
| LoganDark wrote:
| RAW gets all caps the same way TXT, JPG, CMD, SH, BAT, and etc.
| get all caps. That is, you are also perfectly free to say raw
| files, text files, JPEG files, command files, shell scripts,
| and batch scripts, or .txt files, .jpg files, .cmd files, .sh
| scripts, and .bat scripts, and not everyone uses the same
| convention (or even consistently a single one).
| Hamuko wrote:
| I don't really see "SH" being used instead of "sh". JPG and
| JPEG get the uppercase treatment because it is actually an
| initialism (Joint Photographic Experts Group) unlike "raw".
| LoganDark wrote:
| Some are more used than others, and indeed, JPEG is an
| initialism. My point is the uppercase treatment doesn't
| depend on initialism, i.e. RAW doesn't have to stand for
| something to be capitalized because uppercasing file
| extensions is just a thing that happens.
| sigseg1v wrote:
| The way I interpreted what they were saying is that they
| were focused more on the fact that for raw files, the
| extension is not ".raw", it's ".nef" (for Nikon for
| example) so that's why it's questionable to capitalize
| it.
| gyomu wrote:
| This is one of those "well actuallys" battles that has been
| lost a long, long time ago my photographic friend.
|
| Yes, "RAW" itself isn't a format like TXT or an acronym like
| JPEG, but in practice RAW appears alongside other all-caps
| names like JPG, DNG, TIFF, etc. in menus and documentation and
| so the industry has mostly converged on writing it RAW for
| consistency.
|
| Fujifilm writes "RAW": https://fujifilm-
| dsc.com/en/manual/x100vi/connections/raw/
|
| Nikon writes "RAW":
| https://onlinemanual.nikonimglib.com/zf/en/raw_processing_59...
|
| Canon writes "RAW":
| https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/training-articles/trainin...
|
| Leica writes "RAW": https://leica-
| camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-73002-Leica-...
|
| Even Adobe writes "RAW":
| https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/raw.htm...
|
| Descriptively yours,
| giwook wrote:
| I appreciate the breakdown.
|
| But practically speaking, does it really matter? The goal of
| language is to communicate, and in this case we all understand
| what the author is referring to when they reference "RAW".
|
| It's like chastisting someone for saying "Band-Aid" instead of
| "bandage". One refers to a specific company that makes small
| adhesive bandages and the other is the thing itself. But we all
| understand what you mean when you say "band-aid".
|
| And isn't that the point?
| rlt wrote:
| This is one of those things as a pedantic technologist I've had
| to accept, like DJs referring to USB thumb drives they store
| their music on as "USBs".
| karmasimida wrote:
| The only reliable raw converter that can handle Fuji color is
| Capture One. But they have collaboration with Fuji, I don't
| believe that conversion algorithm is open sourced.
|
| But it would be interesting if AI coding agent could potentially
| reverse engineer the algorithm.
| heipei wrote:
| Like the native Fujifilm software, this does _not_ do raw
| conversion itself. It uses the processor in the camera to do
| the conversion.
| riedel wrote:
| Smart move of Fujifilm. That will the future of software
| licencing with AI breaking copyright. Software will come
| encrypted and only run on secure processors. AI will push us
| further into an age of cloud, software DRM and software
| patents. The rest will be effectively public domain.
| tuukkah wrote:
| AIs will reverse engineer the processing algorithms based
| on observing a few example inputs and outputs...
| karmasimida wrote:
| Actually I give it a try ... the results is interesting
|
| I will share it shortly
| strogonoff wrote:
| I always recommend RawTherapee for serious photography work. In
| addition to having been (at least originally) written by a
| complete colour theory geek and featuring a treasure trove of
| knowledge in the form of its companion RawPedia, it supports a
| whole host of raw formats, X-Trans RAFs among them (although
| Foveon X3Fs regrettably still an open issue).
| eloisius wrote:
| I appreciate RawTherapee too and used it for a long time, but
| I started to notice that it really can't match DPP for
| rendering Canon raw images. The denoising is nowhere near as
| good and it takes a lot of work to make the colors come out
| as good as DPP which has same processing profiles like
| "Faithful" that just look great out of the box.
| prmoustache wrote:
| What is DPP? I find it courteous in a conversation when the
| full name is provided before the first occurence of an
| acronym.
|
| I had to look for it and for those who are as puzzled as I
| found Canon Digital Photo professional (RAW Image
| Processing, Viewing and Editing Software).
|
| Pentax user here (hobby level), I am not aware of the other
| brands ecosystems.
| ekianjo wrote:
| I have one Foveon camera, any hope for Foveon X3Fs support
| outside of RawTherapee? DarkTable does not process them
| correctly either
| whatever1 wrote:
| Doesn't Adobe Lightroom these days also have proper RAW
| conversion and the Fuji film simulations?
| asdff wrote:
| Unless something changed in the last 6 months, the answer is
| no. Their demosaicing algorithm implementation for fuji still
| lead to the worms. You need to use capture 1 or dcraw/libraw.
| blakblakarak wrote:
| It works for me - over sharpening produces worms but the
| denoise alone makes it worth it over Capture One for me.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| The implementation used by libraw is just as good. Lightroom on
| the other hand is trash and wormy.
| heipei wrote:
| This is amazing, thank you for launching it. I know this webapp
| itself will make me more likely to look at raw photos on my Fuji
| once again.
| asah wrote:
| Worked!! Samsung Galaxy fold 7, Chrome 146.0.7680.153, GFX 100S
| II firmware 1.20
|
| MacOS 15.6.1 - could see the camera via PTP but couldn't connect
| (clicking "connect" didn't do anything, no error)
| deanc wrote:
| This is pretty impressive work.
|
| On a related note, Fuji's simulations being locked to their
| walled garden has been an issue for third party tools forever.
| All "replications" of on device are just that. And never
| comparable.
|
| I think a lot of people would like to study how they work to
| create true replications.
| enigmaticboom wrote:
| Love this - had contemplated different setups for getting raw
| studio running on linux but gave up before even trying. This is
| exactly what I wanted - a way to play with different recipes, no
| install required.
|
| It bugs out for my XT30 because the profile is a different
| format, but claude was able to figure out a tweak to get it
| running and hide some of the features the XT30 is too old for -
| will do the wireshark thing from a windows machine at some point.
|
| Thank you!
| pjmlp wrote:
| A ChromeOS Platform application, rather.
| petee wrote:
| Great to see more Fuji X attention, their native software isn't
| great. Looking forward to trying it out with my older X-T20,
| which appears supported[1] surprisingly
|
| I was about to mention the Fudge[2] app and its underlying
| library, but its already listed as a reference, nice!
|
| [1] https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-
| us/support/compatibility/softw...
|
| [2] https://github.com/petabyt/fudge
| p5v wrote:
| Interesting, I'll check it out. But just like X RAW studio, I bet
| that it won't work with my old X-E1.
| wao0uuno wrote:
| This is amazing. Thank you. Seems to be working just fine with
| X-H2.
| yewenjie wrote:
| I have a Fuji X-T5 camera which I haven't really used, and have
| almost no workflow for.
|
| Could someone explain what this software does?
|
| And I'd also appreciate any software and workflow people use.
|
| Would prefer Linux software, but macOS is okay if the quality/
| ease of use is too different.
| lwood42 wrote:
| When taking photo's on the Fuji it stores both RAW and JPG file
| - the camera's settings (film simulation, exposure, white
| balance, grain etc.) are all 'baked in' to the JPG. This app
| (and the official X RAW Studio) allows you to use the camera's
| onboard processor to modify the RAW files with these settings
| (or recipes, to use the term adopted by the Fujifilm community)
| after the fact, and re-export the photo as JPG. It's super
| useful for figuring out which recipes you prefer for different
| types of shot!
|
| I'd also recommend checking out Fuji X Weekly [0] for recipe
| ideas and example shots if you want some inspiration.
|
| [0] https://fujixweekly.com/recipes/
| taquacin wrote:
| any future support for the GFX cameras?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-21 23:01 UTC)